[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:46:18 +0300

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:25:51 +0900
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> I agree, as you state it, it's obvious.  My question is "why does that
> need to be part of the coding system?"

Well, consistency with other ``add-ons'', such as EOL format, is one

> At present the UTF-16 and
> UTF-32 Unicode coding systems (in the abstract) have *twenty-seven*
> variants each (BOM-required, BOM-prohibited, BOM-autodetected X be,
> le, system-dependent X CR, LF, CRLF), and UTF-8 needs *nine*.

Which 9 are needed by UTF-8?  I only see 4: the auto-detecting one,
then one each for -unix. -dos, and -mac.  What am I missing?

> What I proposed was a more generic concept where use of signatures and
> the EOL convention would (at least to the user) appear as buffer-local
> variables.

Don't forget that en/decoding is used on strings as well, not only on
buffers.  Buffer-local variables won't cut it, I think.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]